In the police business we use the term 5% as a euphemism for someone who in actual combat is ready and prepared to prevail under any circumstance no matter how difficult, horrifying or violent. It calls attention to our own Clarence Wilder, who did so remarkably well on his Hachidan test at Summer camp this year. After recovering from brutal gunshot wounds sustained at the hands of a home invader, he not only lived to tell about it, but went back to work, and dove right back into life. The standing ovation wasn't for his performance per se, everyone did a great job on test night. Rather the salute was for the attitude he exhibited by returning to his lifestyle and showing the world that mere survival wasn't good enough.

Here is an interesting article posted by our friends at the Force Science Research Center.

HOW ARE 5%ERS CREATED? BY "EFFORTFUL STUDY," NEW REPORT SAYS

The cerebral game of chess would seem to be several light years removed from the rough-and-tumble world of the street cop. But a new report on the mental processes of chess players suggests that law officers and trainers have a lot to learn from the means by which amateurs become masters of the checkered board.

The same principles that enable a chess player to develop championship expertise can help a conscientious officer become what's called a "5%er"--an exceptional performer--in the policing profession, says Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato.

"A highly skilled chess player has total control over the game," Lewinski observes. "He can see ahead to anticipate what's going to happen, he knows the right alternatives to choose from many options, he acts with speed and confidence, and he beats the competition in a confrontation.

"Those same qualities describe highly skilled officers, and the officers acquire those qualities the same way master chess players do, through an approach called 'effortful study'--ideally, with the help and support of trainers who also understand the essential principles of learning that are involved."

Lewinski's comments come in reaction to an intriguing report called "The Expert Mind," by Philip E. Ross, appearing in the current [8/06] issue of Scientific American magazine. In the 7-pg. article, Ross, a contributing editor at the magazine, details how "[s]tudies of the mental processes of chess grandmasters have revealed clues to how people become experts in other fields as well."

Reviewing a century of psychological research regarding chess players, Ross identifies essential characteristics of top players that, as it turns out, have parallels among outstanding police officers.

"Of course," Lewinski points out, "life on the street is a lot more varied, unpredictable and dangerous than sitting at a chess board. But the way skills are acquired and the thinking processes involved in being exceptionally successful in both activities have a lot in common."

Master chess players, for example, make their decisions with far less analysis than weaker players. "When confronted with a difficult position, a weaker player may calculate for half an hour, often looking many moves ahead, yet miss the right continuation, whereas a grandmaster sees the move immediately, without consciously analyzing anything at all," Ross notes. In "the first few seconds of thought," a master can size up the position of pieces on the board and see where the game is headed.
To the extent that a master does analyze a situation, he does "not examine more possibilities, only better ones," Ross explains, and then more often than not adeptly chooses the best move "in a flash."

Lewinski cites examples of this quality at work in law enforcement:

--A rookie patrol officer and a highly skilled drug interdiction officer independently approach a vehicle on a traffic stop. The officer with seasoned criminal patrol skills will likely pick up immediately on cues of a drug transport through items that are visible in the car, the way the driver answers certain calculated questions, and the body language he exhibits. However, the rookie (or an unmotivated officer, for that matter) might see nothing beyond the initial traffic violation or if he does notice telltale clues may need to spend considerable time assessing what they might mean before reaching a conclusion.

--A highly skilled officer approaching a group of subjects on a street corner might readily notice furtive movements indicating that an attack is brewing, whereas a less seasoned officer might not quickly grasp the implications of subtle early warning cues (and end up getting injured or killed by a surprise assault).

--In a confrontation with a suspect who's resisting arrest, an officer with less experience and training may cast about desperately along the force continuum, trying to find something that brings compliance. An officer who's highly experienced and trained in dealing with resistant subjects will quickly read what he's up against and promptly and confidently select the level of force necessary to swiftly control the situation.

In chess (and analogously in policing) this kind of instant recognition is possible because, through experience and study, a master player has accumulated a vast storehouse of knowledge about chess games and chess positions. During a game, he can quickly tap into this "well-organized system of connections" and "manipulate" it to meet the challenge at hand.

Indeed, measurements of brain activity have confirmed that while novices are analyzing and trying to reason out what moves to make, experts are retrieving information from their long-term memory about "positions and associated strategies" and using that to address the problem. "This finely tuned long-term memory appears to be crucial to expertise," Ross states.

And it's not a matter of experts having a superior memory per se, but rather a memory that retains professional information differently.

Again comparable to certain law enforcement situations, the memory of chess masters is specifically "tuned to typical game positions," Ross points out.
In a revealing experiment, "players at various skill levels were shown positions on a board from actual games and positions obtained by randomly shuffling pieces. After observing the positions briefly, the players were asked to reconstruct them from memory."

The masters and grandmasters were "only marginally better at remembering the random positions" but they were "significantly better than weaker players at recalling the game positions.

"Beginners could not recall more than a very few details" of an actual game position, Ross writes, even after having examined the board for 30 seconds, "whereas grandmasters could usually get it perfectly, even if they had perused it for only a few seconds." Also grandmasters were significantly better at recalling "all the moves in a game" they had played.

"This difference tracks a particular form of memory, specific to the kind of chess positions that commonly occur in play. The specific memory must be the result of training, because grandmasters do no better than others in general tests of memory," including the random-placement tests Ross describes.

As we reported, Dr. Jonathan Page, the FSRC Technical Advisory Board member conducting the research, discovered that officers trained as highly skilled pursuit drivers were able to recall remarkably greater detail about what they had seen after watching videotaped pursuits than were untrained drivers. However, on memory tests not related to pursuits the trained and untrained subjects scored about the same.

"Even among the trained police drivers," Page told Force Science News, "the more training and experience they had the more they were able to recall about pursuits they watched on videotape. It's a steadily increasing continuum--some training helps recall but even more training produces greater results." The same incrementally increasing relationship between skill and recall is charted in the Scientific American report for chess players.

Page suggests: "When you train more under actual field conditions, you develop interpretations and expectations of how things will be. You begin to grasp contextual patterns rather than individual bits of information that have no particular meaning. In a way, you see a story that makes sense and is more readily remembered.

"This distinguishes the expert from the novice, who may struggle to decode each individual element of a scene before him and may simply be overwhelmed with a seemingly unrelated mountain of information."

In his report, Ross asks: "[H]ow do the experts in various subjects acquire their extraordinary skills? How much can be credited to innate talent and how much to intensive training?" And then he provides answers that carry important implications for every officer and LE instructor, Lewinski says.

"The one thing that all expertise theorists agree on is that it takes enormous effort to build" the expert mind, either in the realm of chess or in another discipline, Ross states. In the process, "motivation appears to be a more important factor than innate ability.... The preponderance of psychological evidence indicates" that professionals with outstanding skills, in short, "are made, not born."

Research indicates that the key "is not experience per se but 'effortful study,'" according to Ross. Such study involves learning and practice that entail "continually tackling challenges that lie just beyond one's competence." In other words, Lewinski explains, as you gain in ability, "the bar is constantly moved higher so that your skill level must keep stretching and improving to reach it."

It's possible, Ross says, for people to "spend tens of thousands of hours playing chess or golf or a musical instrument without ever advancing beyond the amateur level." Yet a student who trains properly "can overtake them in a relatively short time" and keep on improving. Interestingly, the quantity of time spent playing chess, even in competitive tournaments, "appears to contribute less" than effortful study to a person's progress. "The main training value of such games is to point up weaknesses for future study,"
Ross says. (Similarly, Lewinski points out, that can be a major value of debriefing after a policing confrontation.)

At first, everybody involved in something new generally engages in effortful study, "which is why beginners so often improve rapidly" in a given undertaking, Ross notes. "But having reached an acceptable performance most people relax. Their performance then becomes automatic and therefore impervious to further improvement."

In contrast, those who achieve exceptional skill "keep the lid of their mind's box open all the time, so that they can inspect, criticize and augment its contents and thereby approach the standard set by leaders in their fields," Ross says.

Each accomplishment strengthens motivation. Thus, "success builds on success" for the outstanding performer.

Lewinski further frames these findings in a law enforcement context. "In law enforcement, we typically train to competency, not to proficiency," he says. "In effect, competency means that someone determines on a basis not related to science that if you pass a certain test you are skillful enough to carry a gun and make deadly force decisions, for example. Proficiency requires the application of effective techniques to a variety of relevant situations with a high degree of skill and accuracy of judgment.

"When you are proficient you may not technically be an expert equivalent to the chess grandmasters but you are very, very good at what you do. You're the best that you can be. And the method by which you attain that skill level is the same method the expert uses--practicing to the end of your limits and then, with correction and motivation, practicing to the end of your new limits, over and over again."

So-called 5%er officers, the highly motivated individuals who become expert in police practices, Lewinski believes, "could be made less rare by changes in training. Too many trainers see their job as merely to teach a technical skill. The true challenge is to inspire officers to learn the skill, practice it, and pursue it with vigor and enthusiasm.

"We need to establish high standards that challenge officers to grow beyond a minimum level of competence, to be enthusiastic about getting better at what they do. How likely is that in departments that require an officer merely to shoot a thousand rounds in basic firearms 'training' and then to 'qualify' 3 or 4 times a year--period?

"In that environment, there's no real training, no improvement, no one challenging you but yourself. If you try to improve on your own, you may run into barriers: you can only go to the range if a supervisor is there, but the supervisor is always too busy, or you have to pay for any extra ammunition you use.

"Instead of departmental policies and priorities that encourage mediocrity, we need a training philosophy that encourages, nurtures and guides the development of expertise. It's what the community expects and deserves."

If you have the burning drive of a 5%er, determined to maximize your skills regardless of obstacles, understand that "in the early stages, effortful study is very difficult," Lewinski says. "Pushing your limits inevitably involves a lot of failure. When you fail, you need to back off a bit, learn to correct your weaknesses, and build your way back up.

"To get really, really good takes time. Be patient with yourself, because you need that time for your training and experience to evolve into mastery."

i think the corrallaries between chess and the martial arts are many. Your thoughts on the difference between how the master and the avg or above avg. player views the game -- from my experience - is right on target. I have observed that a master has ability for pattern recognition that is much more advanced and refined. While the above avg player may move tactically or even be what's called a "positional" player a master's every move is interconnected, and is multi layered in style. Each move has an offensive and defensive capability, and the master is always looking for the the opponent's move to "help" him improve his position.

I have a few ideas how chess can be used in a law enforcement context should you be interested. I enjoyed the Red Man businessmans Breakfast and lookforward to tking part again next summercamp.

At first, everybody involved in something new generally engages in effortful study, "which is why beginners so often improve rapidly" in a given undertaking, Ross notes. "But having reached an acceptable performance most people relax. Their performance then becomes automatic and therefore impervious to further improvement."

In contrast, those who achieve exceptional skill "keep the lid of their mind's box open all the time, so that they can inspect, criticize and augment its contents and thereby approach the standard set by leaders in their fields," Ross says.

doing the same thing and expecting a different result ......

the law of diminishing returns .

obvious , but the antithesis of many folks martial arts instruction .

All the best folks Ive met explore there karate they dont practice it verbatim .

whats worse is the vicous loop where as because I havent perfected this yet I wont explore it`s potential variations , IMHO this attitutude makes it almost impossible to master anything .

I like the idea of using chess as a vehicle for developing operational skills. I only wish I understood the game well enough to be the master that could impart its profound lessons on others. I'll have to seek out some true Chess experts to pull this off. Thanks for the ideas!

I`m far from that expert "Zak" far exceeds me as I noted by his rating.
To cross over from chess to actual combat has intrigued me for sometime. The abilty for a "master" to glance at a board (or even to be toldthe positions of the pieces) and immediately react with a sound plan is demonstrative of the minds potential...Now to apply it to such things as Roy Bedard suggest.
Tactical players can be good but are not at the "operational" level as a positional player. Positional players develop a sound structure to eventually reduce the other players options and increase his own. Tactical is a planned play be it long range or short range plan but it does not postion the "troops" in postion to respond to the unexpected etc...Which I think they are referring to a well developed positional player in this quote

Quote:

"A highly skilled chess player has total control over the game," Lewinski observes. "He can see ahead to anticipate what's going to happen, he knows the right alternatives to choose from many options, he acts with speed and confidence, and he beats the competition in a confrontation.

Note: Kasparov (the great positional genuis of all time IMHO) eventually lost against IBM`s "Deep Blue" because he went tactical...He tried to beat the super computor at its own game. Deep Blue could process billions of possibilties each second but can not think positional in the manner humans can. The games Kasparov won against Deep Blue he was himself "aggressively postional"
Ahhhh...ranting but IBM knows the truth.
Seek experts who can play multiple games via blindfold IMO

That is a great description of the tactical and positional play, thanks CANDANeh -- One of the ideas I opted to Roy was using a chess problem as a kind of Rorsharch for martial artists ( maybe professional law enforcement) putting out the problem on a big screen, describe it and then pulling out WHATEVER the students interpert as similar to their street level experience. Then compare the solutions. A multi-level mind excersise...

Ahhh...I see where your going with your suggestion "zak10w40", good idea.
More thoughts

Quote:

The true challenge is to inspire officers to learn the skill, practice it, and pursue it with vigor and enthusiasm.

To improve at chess beyond the average player takes analytical skills which includes a form of "de-briefing".

Now this may sound funny but hey chess players are noted for thier sense of humor right?

Create a tournament in a department (winner gets a free years supply of donuts or something )
Chess pieces in form of officers, privates pawn right up to Captain King ...Queen...well best to pick Captains wife eh?
The police departments top player also must play a chess player in the >2000 (I think your in that range Zak) with his peers analyzing thier play.
Anyhow...excersise the analytical mind

Ok forget donuts.
Chess can only enhance a persons abilty to react to problems effectively. However, a problem exist in that it is considered a game of old men and big headed guys with skinny arms.
Grapplers would do well at chess as in watching Joe Pomfet doing ground work all the elements exist, sacrifices (they often offer something for a much greater gain, known effective openings (first few moves of a chess game) middle game with learned and well rehearsed positional/tactical changes and dramatic end game. He (they) eliminate tactics that can lead to a trap and focus on position to eventually take advandage of the center (which of course is being the one on top in ground work) He tries to makes his opponent move into poor position which is a good operational strategy no?
If someone like Joe Pomfet could (I`m certain he could) excelled at chess he make be living proof that more than an analogy exist between the two. Officers learn ground work (short term gain) and may see potential to enhance operational abilty with tools such as chess.
PS Tim Horton`s beats out both Dunkins and Krispy Kreme
Ask any Canadian Mounted Police Officer

Good points. For the new player, beginner or whatever ranks - one of the interesting ideas I support is chess helps develop patience and confidence. These are very good to have in a fighter's arsenal as well. While the medium is different, It saves alot of time developing and getiing into what is commonoly called the "zone" when your can recognize the feeling of confidence and patience. Kind of like the steps you take to aim a gun -- the recognition of a feeling of confidence can then be transferred from chess to Martial arts with less training (or rewiring). Least ways I support that idea.

I'll have to pick up a box of Tim Horton's which I plan on dunking in a mug of Brador -- Here's to friends north of the US border.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum